JUDGMENT

SHINGHAL, J.:—Appellant Harish Chandra and his co-accused Ram Autar were convicted by the First Temporary Sessions Judge, Pilibhit, of an offence under S. 39, I. P. C. and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years. The High Court upheld their conviction, but reduced the sentence of Ram Autar to two years and of Harish Chandra to one year. Against that judgment of the High Court dated April 30, 1971, Harish Chandra has preferred the present appeal. No appeal has been filed by the other accused Ram Autar.

2. It was alleged that Avinash Kumar (P. W. 1) boarded a train at Chakarpur railway station on 1431 April 8, 1968, at about 7 or 7.30 p.m. to go to Purnagiri in Pilibhit district. Appellant Harish Chandra and his co-accused, along with some other persons, entered the same compartment after Avinash Kumar (P.W. 1). When the train reached railway station Thankpur at about 9 or 9.30 p.m. some of the travellers started getting down from the compartment and there was a great rush. It was alleged that, at that time, accused Ram Autar forcibly took away the wrist watch of Avinash Kumar (P.W. 1) and when he (Avinash Kumar) raised an alarm, appellant Harish Chandra slapped him and his other companion hit him with a stick. Harish Chandra and his companions then jumped out of the compartment, followed by Avinash Kumar (P.W.1), who found a constable at the platform and informed him of the incident. A search was made for the appellant and his companions at the platform and, ultimately, both Harish Chandra and Ram Autar were found near a tea stall, at a short distance from the railway station. Avinash Kumar (P.W.1) identified Harish Chandra and Ram Autar as the person who had robbed him of the wrist watch, and the constable caught hold of them. On being questioned, appellant Harish Chandra is said to have taken Avinash Kumar and the constables to a heap of ash lying behind the tea stall and to have taken out the stolen wrist watch from it. The watch was seized under memorandum Ex. Ka-1. A report was drawn up and the matter taken to police station Pilibhit where appellant Harish Chandra and Ram Autar were handed over to the police for further action. They were both challenged for the commission of an offence under Section 394, I.P.C., along with three other accused. The trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant and Ram Autar as stated above, but acquitted the remaining accused.

3. It has been argued by Mr. Frank Anthony on behalf of the appellant that the High Court committed a serious error of law in placing reliance on the statement said to have been made by the appellant Harish Chandra that he would tell the police where he had put the watch, because it was in the nature of a confession made by the accused person under an inducement proceeding from Ram Murti Singh (P.W.6) who was the Head Rakshak of the Railway Protection Force. It has been urged that such a confession fell within the purview of Sec. 24 of the Evidence Act and could not be admissible even under Section 27 of that Act as it is not an exception to Section 24. Reference in this connection has been made to Ramkrishna Mithanlal v. State of Bombay, AIR 1955 SC 104, Delhi Administration v. Balkrishnan, AIR 1972 SC 3, Emperor v. Taduturu Poligadu, AIR 1940 Mad 12 and Halsbury s Laws of England, third edition, paragraphs 860-862. Our attention has been invited to the statements of Ram Murti Singh (P.W.6) and Avinash Kumar (P.W.1) to show that Ram Murti Singh had told the appellant and Ram Autar that he would release them if they gave the watch and that induced the appellant to say that he would let him know where the watch had been put. Mr. Rana has argued, on the other hand, that the appellant did not say anything to Ram Murti Singh (P.W.6) which could be said to amount to a confession within the meaning of Section 24 of the Evidence Act, and that even if what the appellant said was left out of consideration altogether, that would not affect the correctn